🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His statement said he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.